Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:

AustonT wrote:
Democrats are political liberals, social progressives, and religious conservatives (yeah it's like that), and economic liberals.

Religious conservatives?

I think you need to look into what a religious conservative is. That phrase has a very particular meaning.

Religious conservatives principally seek to apply the teachings of particular religions to politics, sometimes by merely proclaiming the value of those teachings, at other times by having those teachings influence laws.

Is Christian Religious Conservatism Compatible with the Liberal Social Welfare State?

Abstract:
This article examines the rise of Christian religious conservatism and explores whether the theological views of the conservative Christian movement are compatible with the liberal social welfare state. The authors conclude that the driving force behind social change should remain with the state, even though faith-based initiatives can provide some basic supports that the social welfare state can use.

Democrats in America often use the tenets of true religious conservatism, charity and care for the common man, to enact legislation. That is religious conservatism.

AustonT wrote:
Democrats in America often use the tenets of true religious conservatism, charity and care for the common man, to enact legislation. That is religious conservatism.

First, I'm not sure what you wrote, and what you quoted.

Second, what I believe you quoted does not seem to support your apparent definition of religious conservatism.

Third, religious conservatism doesn't necessarily have any bearing on charity and care for the common man.

Fourth, the distinction is a matter of motivation, no one in their right mind would ever claim that Democrats tend to be motivated by religious conservatism; which is largely, in America, interchangeable with religious fundamentalism.

Yeah, seriously-- religious conservatives are sometimes some of the most hateful people I've ever met. They see no conradiction intheir hatefulness and their religion, and in fact think their religion justifies their hate.

Probably just a few steps below skinheads for certain ones I know. Of course, sometimes they are skinheads.

@Dogma you are right it does not necessarily agree with what I'm saying. It's just the abstract and I'm not allowed to post whole articles. The meat of it is that true religious conservatist views embody the ideology and spirit of the social welfare state.
It get esoteric suffice to say I'm willing to give up on the religious conservatism thing because you are right there is a rift between what it's supposed to mean and what it IS interpreted as. It's like tryig to make gay mean happy again.

Melissia wrote:Yeah, seriously-- religious conservatives are sometimes some of the most hateful people I've ever met. They see no conradiction intheir hatefulness and their religion, and in fact think their religion justifies their hate.

Probably just a few steps below skinheads for certain ones I know. Of course, sometimes they are skinheads.

You, not so much. Just because a person or group of people is hateful doesn't make thier religion hateful, nor does it justify hate. Especially since I can only assume that we are talking about Christianity and Christian Fundamentalism. Since Christians were originally ostracized and martyred for being pacifists, and that Christianity is a religion founded on love and forgiveness, this is another case of separate the person from what they say they are into what they are: hateful and distinctly unchristian.

AustonT wrote:@Dogma you are right it does not necessarily agree with what I'm saying. It's just the abstract and I'm not allowed to post whole articles. The meat of it is that true religious conservatist views embody the ideology and spirit of the social welfare state.
It get esoteric suffice to say I'm willing to give up on the religious conservatism thing because you are right there is a rift between what it's supposed to mean and what it IS interpreted as. It's like tryig to make gay mean happy again.

I think that as I grew (and as I am still growing) in my Christian faith, I have become more conservative in my Christian beliefs, but more liberal in my political beliefs.

To me my faith is not about "how can I tell people what not to do", but the focus for me has become more about "what can I do for others". In my opinion, the liberal politics of "welfare, protecting others and creation (ie: Hippie politics, protecting trees and such), less military interventions" seem to have more of a Biblical justification than the "don't abort that baby, and get a job to take care of your 4th child, no I'm not giving you any money" conservative view.

I know that a big part of the conservative and/or libertarian viewpoint is that there should be no government charity and that this role should be fulfilled by religious institutions, but while that sounds good it does not work out that way in real life. If churches were to pick who gets to receive welfare, would there be a guarantee that the "gay homeless AIDS patients shelter" gets any help? Or would they be left to suffer for their "sins"?

d-USA wrote:I think that as I grew (and as I am still growing) in my Christian faith, I have become more conservative in my Christian beliefs, but more liberal in my political beliefs.

To me my faith is not about "how can I tell people what not to do", but the focus for me has become more about "what can I do for others". In my opinion, the liberal politics of "welfare, protecting others and creation (ie: Hippie politics, protecting trees and such), less military interventions" seem to have more of a Biblical justification than the "don't abort that baby, and get a job to take care of your 4th child, no I'm not giving you any money" conservative view.

This is basically the point I was driving at and what religious conservatism should really mean, mixed with a little liberal social equality and enacted into law.
Instead, at least here in America, religious conservative is the polite way to say flying rodent gak crazy religious loony.

AustonT wrote:

d-USA wrote:I think that as I grew (and as I am still growing) in my Christian faith, I have become more conservative in my Christian beliefs, but more liberal in my political beliefs.

To me my faith is not about "how can I tell people what not to do", but the focus for me has become more about "what can I do for others". In my opinion, the liberal politics of "welfare, protecting others and creation (ie: Hippie politics, protecting trees and such), less military interventions" seem to have more of a Biblical justification than the "don't abort that baby, and get a job to take care of your 4th child, no I'm not giving you any money" conservative view.

This is basically the point I was driving at and what religious conservatism should really mean, mixed with a little liberal social equality and enacted into law.
Instead, at least here in America, religious conservative is the polite way to say flying rodent gak crazy religious loony.

The "Religious Conservative" label that can be applied to a portion of the population in the US could just as easily be applied to the "Religious Conservatives" in Iran, Afghanistan, or any other Muslim Theocracy. And pretty much for the same reason. They want the same thing, just based on a different book. But the current "religious right" in the US would love to set up a Christian Theocracy in the US, while at the same time condemning any non-Christian Theocracy as a danger to democracy everywhere. So I totally get where you are coming from.

AustonT wrote:You, not so much. Just because a person or group of people is hateful doesn't make thier religion hateful, nor does it justify hate.

Read the post again. Emphasis mine:

Melissia wrote:Yeah, seriously-- religious conservatives are sometimes some of the most hateful people I've ever met. They see no conradiction intheir hatefulness and their religion, and in fact think their religion justifies their hate.

Notice those words. I'm merely saying religion does not exempt one from being a bad person, in fact, I'm not even convinced it makes people better people as a whole-- those who want an excuse to do bad things will use religion as an excuse, those who need a reason to do good things will use religion as their reason.

And none of this has anything to do with conservative vs liberal. PETA and ecoterrorists justify their actions with religion sometimes, too.

That's one of the things that annoys me the most about living in Iowa: apparently you need to get a special liquor license to sell alcohol on Sunday. One of the local supermarket lacks it, so if I go shopping on a Sunday, I can't get booze.

Dear Religious Moralists who made this law: Jesus turned water into wine, not the other way around.

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:You, not so much. Just because a person or group of people is hateful doesn't make thier religion hateful, nor does it justify hate.

Read the post again. Emphasis mine:

Melissia wrote:Yeah, seriously-- religious conservatives are sometimes some of the most hateful people I've ever met. They see no conradiction intheir hatefulness and their religion, and in fact think their religion justifies their hate.

Notice those words. I'm merely saying religion does not exempt one from being a bad person, in fact, I'm not even convinced it makes people better people as a whole-- those who want an excuse to do bad things will use religion as an excuse, those who need a reason to do good things will use religion as their reason.

And none of this has anything to do with conservative vs liberal. PETA and ecoterrorists justify their actions with religion sometimes, too.

Maybe it's the sweeping overhanded generalizations you've made in the past that make me assume that you are doing so again.

Conservatism is mostly about trying to control peoples' lives via social laws (IE banning gay marriage, banning abortion, forcing people to pray in school, etc-- basically force their backwards religious views on everyone else in the form of laws, rules, and regulations, in most cases, but communism was also conservative in this regards).

I think you're referring to "right wing" rather than "conservative". No, the two are not the same.

Which is true by my definition. Conservatism is about controlling people's lives, whereas liberalism is about expansion of civil liberties.

Also why I don't consider hardline stances for extreme gun control to be liberal...

Well, liberlism is usually pro healthcare. Reducing the number of bullets in people could be seen as a healthcare initiative. It's a form of lead poisoning right?

Melissia wrote:Which is true by my definition.

And by my definition the sky is purple, banks are evil, and a Dakka user named Melissa sacrifices baby three toed sloths to her demonic master. That doesn't make it anymore true.
Since American Conservatives are more accurately described as conservative liberals, and thier overarching view is that civil liberties should be broad and unlimited. You can't push social conservatism which is a fringe group on conservative at large, especially when you are actually referring to American conservatives. That's called sweeping generalization. What you are really talking about is Republicans, who are not conservatives and are not synonymous with conservatives no matter how hard they try. They are progressives.

Your move.

AustonT wrote:You can't push social conservatism which is a fringe group...

I wouldn't call it a fringe group considering the results produced by opinion surveys on gay marriage, abortion, etc.

My problem with the 'label' business is that no matter what you are, the 'other' side is always changing, twisting and defining it
to what they want the people to think it means.

The super secret way to win that game is not to play, or only play to the extent to which it annoys other players.

AustonT wrote:American Conservatives [...] overarching view is that civil liberties should be broad and unlimited.

I don't buy this, because so-called American Conservatives care about anything but civil liberties. American conservatives are all about restricting the civil liberties of anyone who isn't like them.

but its so hard not to.
I think its fair to label true anti-abortionists "fringe." It's hard to sympathize with someone who blindly believes that no abortion should be performed under any circumstances. Also easy to call that persons beliefs "extreeme" which is the base definition of a fringe group.
Those members of a group or political party holding extreme views -thefreedictionary.com
When given only the choice "pro-life" and "pro-choice" its a lot easier to vote just one way or the other. Both are extreeme views. If the choice was: pro-choice only to save a womans life, pro-choice also to protect a womans physical health, pro choice also to protect a womans mental health, pro choice also on socioecomnomic grounds, pro choice without restriction (within reason: gestational and other limits), and pro-life. Im pretty sure the pro-life number starts to hit number you might call "fringe" Its really the last two categories we are given as a choice, and those two fringes have brought us to the decision point. I'm sure there are pro-life "liberals" and pro-choice "conservatives" as per Melissa's all encompassing definitions.
I'm also sure that after forcing rape victims into bringing babies to term, imposing the death penalty on homsexual marriages, chasing all the illegals out, and establishing thier autocracy Melissa's conservatives club baby seals.
Her liberals use contraceptive drugs to perform chemical abortions on death row inmates, currently in rehabilitation on probabtion while engaged to thier same sex spouses.

Melissia wrote:Which is true by my definition. Conservatism is about controlling people's lives, whereas liberalism is about expansion of civil liberties.

Just to spit gas into the fire. I bolded that part on purpose. The expansion of civil liberties is an interesting place to hold your ground for liberals, which I have long since determined Melissa used in place of "Democrats"
Lets start with Woodrow Wilson, Democrat, President of the United States 1913-1921. Wildly racist, and opposed to women's sufferage (Wilson also receives undue credit for the development of Women's Suffrage during his administration. In fact, he personally opposed giving women the right to vote, and his wife was vehemently against it. He only stopped opposing it (and having suffragists arrested) after he became convinced that it was politically inexpedient to oppose it.) he also responsible for the enactment of the Espionage and Sedition Acts that slammed civil liberties in a way never seen before.
Maybe more modern?
Dwight Eisenhower, Republican, President of the United States 1953-1962. Dynamic conservative, expanded the New Deal, made Welfare a cabinet level position, and introduced and signed into law the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts DESPITE opposition from then Senate Majority Leader LBJ.
Its fair to mention that LBJ subsequently pushed through JFKs much stronger Civil Rights Act (more like Ikes original) opened immigration, and signed medicare into law.
I'm confused which ones are liberals?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:American Conservatives [...] overarching view is that civil liberties should be broad and unlimited.

I don't buy this, because so-called American Conservatives care about anything but civil liberties. American conservatives are all about restricting the civil liberties of anyone who isn't like them.

ORLY? See Eisenhower above.

Eisenhower would be considered a liberal today, just like Barry Goldwater. The political compass changes over time so it is difficult to compare someone from the present with someone from the past. What the label means changes.

And? Why would I care about an older president?

Right now, essentailly the entire (or at least the core, most important parts) social platform of conservativse is restricting marriage, banning abortion, punishing criminals, and deporting hispanics.

All of them a restriction of civil liberties. This is what defines the conservatism of right now.

Piston Honda wrote:

That must be the new "Palin Party 2012" design!

Melissia wrote:And? Why would I care about an older president?

Right now, essentailly the entire (or at least the core, most important parts) social platform of conservativse is restricting marriage, banning abortion, punishing criminals, and deporting hispanics.

All of them a restriction of civil liberties. This is what defines the conservatism of right now.

Yes why should you allow history, or little things like facts to stand in the way of your bigoted political ideology.
Here's a link to the last presidential campaigns platform.
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/2008platform.pdf
You are welcome to cite where civil liberties are infringed. Weather I or you agree with it or not they believe in extending civil liberties to unborn children, it's a pro life stance. But extending the 14th amendment to unborn children, extending public health care to unborn children, and mandating care to children born alive during late term abortions all seem like the expansion of civil liberties to me.
Deporting illegal immigrants shouldn't even be a political issue, it's enforcing our laws and borders, just like every other country does. Since you seem to think we are just targeting Hispanics we should adopt Mexicos immigration policies. Being Hispanic surly their policies aren't fueled by racism.
Restricting marriage, meh, it's a losing battle they haven't quite let go of yet.
And "punishing criminals"... I'm dumbfounded. Any credibility you may have had before evaporated right there. All politicians support punishig criminals. It's not like fishing you don't catch and release.

So let's recap.
Extending civil liberties to unborn children.
Enforcing immigration laws, illegal immigrants don't have civil liberties. They aren't part of our society and aren't protected by our laws.
Restricting the right of homosexuals to marry.
Enforcing the criminal code to protect the safety of the community. So the body public is guaranteed safety and security, pretty sure that's a civil liberty too.

Now back to the beginning, American conservatism began after WWII that makes Ike the first conservative president. He remains relevant as the foundation of the conservatives in America. The party hasn't changed that much over time. Conservatism hasn't changed, the right, which claims to be conservative has strayed from it's core values. You started a thread about the left and right and conservative and liberals, but failed to acknowledge that none of them of mutually exclusive; you also failed to address the real groups that you are talking about. Republicans and Democrats.

More reference material for you to not read.

In the United States, conservatism developed after the Second World War when Russell Kirk and other writers identified an American conservative tradition based on the ideas of Edmund Burke. However many writers do not accept American conservatism as genuine and consider it to be a variety of liberalism.
The meaning of "conservatism" in America has little in common with the way the word is used elsewhere. As Ribuffo (2011) notes, "what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism." Since the 1950s conservatism in the United States has been chiefly associated with the Republican Party. However, during the era of segregation many Southern Democrats were conservatives, and they played a key role in the Conservative Coalition that controlled Congress from 1937 to 1963.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

alarmingrick wrote:

Piston Honda wrote:

That must be the new "Palin Party 2012" design!

The first thing I thought was "the Bull Moose party" then I remembered how very bananas Palin is, and how progressive Teddy was. What a difference 100 years makes.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912)

Melissia wrote:Seeing as it came up in another thread-- what's your views on these labels? Not a discussion on the actual merits of what each "group"'s views are, but what exactly each label means. Even though we probably won't agree, it'll help get an idea of where people are coming from when they use these kinds of terms.

For myself... each pair indicates a spectrum, and everything is separate but no exclusive. Let's start with the former pair.

Right wing indicates one leans towards free-market solutions to economic problems, while left-wing prefers government intervention as a solution to economic problems.

-- Right wingers typically advocate deregulation, little to no government oversight, fewer if any government bailouts, etc-- and on the extreme end, a complete and utter separation of public and private sectors, essentially economic anarchism.

-- Left wingers typically advocate heavier regulation, more overnment oversight, government bailouts of companies, etc-- and on the extreme end, abolishment of the private sector entirely so that everything is government-run, essentially communism.

Left and Right wing politics deals with more issues than just the economy.

Speaking for my country (UK), I'd say that modern British conservatism places the emphasis on individual responsibility, but also on individual liberty. The government should play as little a part in running your life as possible, whether in the case of abortion, or who you share your bed with. Cameron has just stated in no uncertain terms that he supports gay marriage (and he used the word 'marriage') because he supports marriage:

Tory PM David Cameron wrote:I once stood before a Conservative conference and said it shouldn’t matter whether commitment was between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man. You applauded me for that. Five years on, we’re consulting on legalising gay marriage. And to anyone who has reservations, I say: Yes, it’s about equality, but it’s also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative.

I'm a modern Tory because these are my values, not the other way around. Equal rights for British citizens, because the government shouldn't decide which of us get to have rights.

AustonT wrote: But extending the 14th amendment to unborn children, extending public health care to unborn children, and mandating care to children born alive during late term abortions all seem like the expansion of civil liberties to me.

It's a restriction of women's rights, with the "rights of babies" nothing more than a pretty-looking mask-- once the child comes out of the womb, the party at least stops even pretending to give a gak about it. Certainly they almost never support means of ensuring the baby doesn't suffer.

AustonT wrote:Deporting illegal immigrants shouldn't even be a political issue, it's enforcing our laws and borders, just like every other country does.

Except that the way they're doing it is often invasive of legal immigrants, or even actual citizens, and certainly they're doing it without doing anything to solve the problem which is related to civil liberties-- that there simply are too many restrictions on the right to immigrate, so many who want or even need to come to the US don't have a choice but to do so illegally... or stay in Mexico, which is essentially a bullet-riddled mess right now. A choice I wouldn't want to have to make to be sure. Or Syria, which isn't much better. Or any number of countries in turmoil.

AustonT wrote:Restricting marriage, meh, it's a losing battle they haven't quite let go of yet.

So? They're still arguing for the restriction of civil liberties.

AustonT wrote:And "punishing criminals"

... at the cost of restricting the civil rights of the accused. Death penalty is the ultimate sanction and removal of the rights of a living being, and after one is killed by the state in such a way regardless of actual guilt or innocence there's no turning back. The death penalty is not the only way they want to restrict the rights of the accused either.

AustonT wrote:
Deporting illegal immigrants shouldn't even be a political issue, it's enforcing our laws and borders, just like every other country does.

You'll also note that most other countries don't enforce their laws evenly either. Law enforcement isn't just about following the instructions written on a piece of paper, there are also issues of practicality to consider.

AustonT wrote:
All politicians support punishig criminals. It's not like fishing you don't catch and release.

But generally you don't find all politicians using the same rhetoric about punishing criminals, and the GOP most likely has a higher proportion of politicians who work at their "tough on crime" image.

AustonT wrote:
Now back to the beginning, American conservatism began after WWII that makes Ike the first conservative president.

American conservatism has been around for a lot longer than that, its just that the current brand of conservatism can trace its direct intellectual roots to the 50's; especially in terms of defense policy and anti-communism.

AustonT wrote:
He remains relevant as the foundation of the conservatives in America.

Eisenhower would most likely be considered a liberal in the present climate, and especially so in the sense in which liberalism is juxtaposed against conservatism which is being considered in this thread.

AustonT wrote:
The party hasn't changed that much over time. Conservatism hasn't changed, the right, which claims to be conservative has strayed from it's core values.

The party, presuming you mean the Republican Party, has changed a lot over time. Presidents like the first Bush, Nixon, Ford, and Eisenhower would not likely be welcome in the GOP today; certainly not as legitimate candidates.

Albatross wrote:Speaking for my country (UK), I'd say that modern British conservatism places the emphasis on individual responsibility, but also on individual liberty. The government should play as little a part in running your life as possible, whether in the case of abortion, or who you share your bed with. Cameron has just stated in no uncertain terms that he supports gay marriage (and he used the word 'marriage') because he supports marriage:

Tory PM David Cameron wrote:I once stood before a Conservative conference and said it shouldn’t matter whether commitment was between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man. You applauded me for that. Five years on, we’re consulting on legalising gay marriage. And to anyone who has reservations, I say: Yes, it’s about equality, but it’s also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative.

I'm a modern Tory because these are my values, not the other way around. Equal rights for British citizens, because the government shouldn't decide which of us get to have rights.

Our Tories used to be like your Tories but then they disbanded and reformed to be more like American conservatives. I don't even like it when they call them Tories anymore, that's not accurate imo. They're just Conservatives.

Somewhere along the lines the Conservative vs Liberal thing when it comes to social issues got way out of whack.

At the core, conservatives want as little government involvement in their lives as possible. The effect of this would be states rights on issues of abortion, as it used to be, most states would allow it, some would not. Gays would be allowed to marry, given a state allows it, and their church will do it. People would be able to use any
drugs they want, as long as their state allows it, etc.

The seperation of church and state as defined in the USA founding documents, that the state shall not enforce or sponsor a religion. Which does not mean the two are entirely seperate, just that the state does not say "this religion is good, this one is bad."

Defense of the country and its boundaries, aka immigration laws and enforcement are a federal matter.

This is now considered libertarian, which a lot of people are, if they took the time to honestly evaluate themselves, and their positions on things.

There are some really good political spectrum tests online. There was one I really liked years ago but could not locate again.

A lot of the newer ones, ask questions in a more skewed way, and pair things in questions that are mutually exclusive. So be warned before you take the quizzes and reallly read and think about them.

Me, I am a right leaning libertarian. About 2 dots down, and 5 to the right.

Found the one I like. Good site.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://politicalcompass.org/test

Pretty Interesting. I'm dead centre on the Y axis but pretty left on the X. That's like the majority of Canadians too I reckon.